I've been using HAMP oil filters that my best man in my wedding bought me. In preparation for a trip, I wanted to change my oil. I recently moved and my HAMP oil filters are boxed up somewhere, so I bought a Fram Sure Grip.

Cruising at 70 MPH, my oil presure with the HAMP filter was around 80 lbs (+/- 2 lbs).
Cruising at 70 MPH, my oil pressure with the FRAM filter is around 70 lbs (+/- 2 lbs).

Needless to say, I'm gonna be tearing through boxes to find my last couple of HAMP filters.

 

If you are concern about oil pressure, you can probably use the mobil 1 M105 (rather than the 104 as they spec) for the larger surface area and shell size. I would imagine 70 vs 80 is not a significant difference (since oil pump is <3% of where all energy goes, so 1/8 of that is <1%).

 

Are you using the regular oil filters or the smaller ones that are used on the RSX and the 03+ CTR? because I thought the smaller ones give you more oil pressure than the regular sized ones.

 

Just figured I'd post this, since it's kinda interesting.


On my oil pressure gauge.. When I was accelerating the oil pressure would go up a lil past 70 (using the Fram filter) then drop down to around 60 lbs evening out around 63 lbs, like a valve was opening and letting my oil by, thus the lower pressure. Every time it did this, which I thought was strange, but I attributed it to my oil pressure gauge not being good.


Well last night I changed my oil and went back to my Hamp filter (found em ) and my oil pressure is now in the high 70's and it doesn't go up then drop back down like it did before. Used the same type of oil and Lucas stabilizer as well.


Moral of the story, buy Hamp filters

**Edit** Good reading on Oil Filters
http://www.effinmotorworks.com/Filters.htm
http://effinmotorworks.com/FiltersII.htm

No pics, but still good to read...
http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml




Modified by mac_24_seven at 5:29 AM 8/21/2007

 

Good write up. I think i will be taking that Fram filter off my car now. thanks for teh info

 

ICB Motorsports sells HAMP filters for 6 bucks. in singles and packs of like 5, 10 and 30 I think. Pretty sweet deal over there if you ask me.

 

Didn't know a oil filter could really make a difference...
Nice advice though...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Project95LS-VTEC (G) &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Didn't know a oil filter could really make a difference...
Nice advice though...</TD></TR></TABLE>

yup been using HAMP for a while now works like a charm

 

Yeah a friend of mine got me using the amp filters and I will never go back. I am also using
synthetic royal purple oil too I am going to buy these filters in bulk on ebay now!

 

I'm try them out...

 

depending where the sender is located in the circuit i cant remember which side of the filter but if it is before the filter the hamp has the restriction hence the higer pressure if it is after the filter the fram has the restriction. I dont think the bypass valve would lower your pressure though it uncorks when the filter gets clogged thats all an open circuit has no restriction or little at all.

 

This is interesting information, but I'm not sure that the extra pressure is necessarily an "improvement" in most situations, and it doesn't seem like the pressure figures for the Fram are/were something to be concerned about.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mac_24_seven &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Used the same type of oil and Lucas stabilizer as well.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Incidentally, if you're indeed truly interested in engine lubrication, you may want to reconsider your use of Lucas Stabilizer as an additive. The results I've seen are not positive, to say the least.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Padawan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This is interesting information, but I'm not sure that the extra pressure is necessarily an "improvement" in most situations, and it doesn't seem like the pressure figures for the Fram are/were something to be concerned about.

Incidentally, if you're indeed truly interested in engine lubrication, you may want to reconsider your use of Lucas Stabilizer as an additive. The results I've seen are not positive, to say the least. </TD></TR></TABLE>

yeah that lucas stuff waters down your oil so it reduces the amount of antifoaments, so it causes aeration in your oil(lots of little air bubbles, which make it foamy) "if you run a good brand of oil already, why would you need lucas?"

 

lucas stabilizer is good to use when you change your oil at least every 3000 miles, its not like you are gunna go fo 5000 miles without an oil change just cuz you added the lucas.... that stuff does wonders when you change your oil when you are supposed to.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by killacam661 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">that stuff does wonders</TD></TR></TABLE>

Unfortunately, that's true: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...s.htm

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by killacam661 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">lucas stabilizer is good to use when you change your oil at least every 3000 miles, its not like you are gunna go fo 5000 miles without an oil change just cuz you added the lucas.... that stuff does wonders when you change your oil when you are supposed to. </TD></TR></TABLE>

says the butt dyno?

oh padawan beat me to the link

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Padawan &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Unfortunately, that's true: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...s.htm</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well now thats very interesting!

Though, I have changed my oil in my car many times, shortly after driving, and I have NEVER seen the oil the milky white as shown in the test, or foamy.

And really, this weekend after I got my car running again, I took it out, drove it kinda hard, came back home and checked my oil: Looked like new, clean oil, not the milky stuff in the test.


Really, if that was the case with the Lucas Additive, people woudl be posting stuff all over the internet when the drained their oil and it was milky/foamy.

Right?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mac_24_seven &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And really, this weekend after I got my car running again, I took it out, drove it kinda hard, came back home and checked my oil: Looked like new, clean oil, not the milky stuff in the test.


Really, if that was the case with the Lucas Additive, people woudl be posting stuff all over the internet when the drained their oil and it was milky/foamy.

Right?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, I think there are likely several factors here.

First, I think it's safe to assume that it really is "the case" with Lucas, since the tests themselves are quite simplistic and there does not seem to be any ulterior motive behind the author's testing.

What doesn't appear to be stated in the tests is the proportion of Lucas added to the various lubricants. It would be nice to think that the author used the same ratio as recommended by Lucas, but without seeing that explicitly stated, we can't necessarily assume. Clearly, if more Lucas were used than is normally recommended, the propensity for the mixture to foam would be increased. However, even if this test depicts an exaggeration due to a different ratio, the foaming will almost certainly be present even at the recommended ratios, though to a lesser degree.

Finally, this test was done using a set of gears rather than even a simplified "simulation" of a motor, so the effects produced by a running engine would likely not be exactly the same as what is seen in the article. Again though, what we are seeing is a propensity for foaming in oil that has had the Lucas Stabilizer added to it, and whether or not the effect is as pronounced or severe when used as directed in an engine, it should at least be reason enough to reconsider using the product. This is particularly true when once considers how well most modern oils perform without any additional additives.

 

i forgot how smart you sound when you type padawan

 

I understand what your saying and agree...

But.. (always a but )

Surely you would be able to SEE the foaming when you remove the oil cap.. because by the time the oil has made its way to the valve cover, why it's been squirted and moved around so much by the rockers and whatnot...Foaming of any kind would be evident.

Agree or no?

Perhaps I shall get a lil video this evening?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mac_24_seven &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Surely you would be able to SEE the foaming when you remove the oil cap.. because by the time the oil has made its way to the valve cover, why it's been squirted and moved around so much by the rockers and whatnot...Foaming of any kind would be evident.

Agree or no?

Perhaps I shall get a lil video this evening?</TD></TR></TABLE>

If the foaming were as severe as what occurred in that testing, then yes. However, as stated, it's possible (and likely) that due to a different ratio of the Lucas additive and the different nature of a running engine verses the gear setup, the foaming is not a pronounced, and therefore not readily detectable. Whether or not that's true, in the end, I suppose the point being made is that the product can cause foaming (as evidenced by this testing), so even if it weren't being detected when used as recommended by the manufacturer, it might be prudent to refrain from using it. It's a case where there seems to be little potential benefit to counter the risk.

On the flip side, your point is also well-taken, and if Lucas caused catastrophic problems in normal use, one would assume we'd have heard about it by now. Indeed, you likely won't kill your engine by using it, but by the same token, you probably aren't doing it any good either. Selecting a high-quality oil and changing it at proper intervals will do far more for the longevity of your engine than adding Lucas to the crankcase.

 

never would have thought about this if it weren't for this thread but imo its probably a different micron level between medias in each filter non of which would harm your engine. fram just probably has a thicker media than hamps. i guess it comes down to opinion and availability. good write up though!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by frontwheelfanatic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> i forgot how smart you sound when you type padawan</TD></TR></TABLE>

Should I take that as a compliment?

 

now i wanna see you get a video of a clear engine(GSR) and with the lucas so we can see how it reacts in an engine, not on a tiny *** gear with a huge *** motor that will cause anything to create air bubbles. get real were talking about an engine not some 2 inch gear with a ******* washing machine motor hooked up to it.
<U>do that then get back to us</U>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by killacam661 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">not on a tiny *** gear with a huge *** motor that will cause anything to create air bubbles.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Really? Then why didn't the plain, high-quality oil foam when used in the same exact apparatus?

The fact that engine components spin very quickly (think of an oil pump, or a crankshaft spinning 8,000 times per minute) is the reason that oil companies work so hard to formulate oils with anti-foaming properties in the first place.